Great N. Ry. Co. v. Steinke

• Citation: 48 N.D. 112,183 N.W. 1013
• Parties: GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. v. STEINKE et al.
• Decision Date: 28 May 1921
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota

48 N.D. 112

183 N.W. 1013

GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.

v.STEINKE et al.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

May 28, 1921.

Syllabus by the Court.

The plaintiff railway company brought action to determine adverse claims to a strip of land which it claims to have selected and appropriated as station grounds under the provisions of Act Cong. March 3, 1875, c. 152, 18 Stat. 482 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 4921-4926). The defendants occupied and claimed title to certain portions of said strip under and by virtue of deeds received through one Pollock, who had obtained a patent from the United States, which, among other lands, purported to convey to said Pollock the whole strip claimed by the railway company in this action. It is held that the defendants are the owners of the respective parcels to which they assert title.

Appeal from District Court, Williams County; Fisk, Judge.

Action by the Great Northern Railway Company against Vivian H. Steinke and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Murphy & Toner, of Grand Forks, for appellant.

Craven & Converse and Wm. G. Owens, all of Williston, for respondents.

CHRISTIANSON, J.

This is an action to determine adverse claims to a certain strip of land adjoining the right of way of the plaintiff railway company in the town of East Spring Brook in Williams county in this state. The plaintiff railway company, as successor in title to the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company, claims that the property in question is a part of the station grounds granted to its predecessor under the act of Congress of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. at L. 482, c. 152; U. S. Comp. St. §§ 4921-4926). And it is averred in the complaint that the several defendants are owners of certain lots in East Spring Brook, which lots “as platted encroach upon” a part of the strip of land to which plaintiff seeks to have title quieted in itself. The strip of land described in the complaint is located wholly within the N. W. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of section 18, township 155, range 99. The defendants answered, denying the allegations of the complaint, and alleging a fee-simple title to the several lots through patent issued by the United States to one Philander Pollock, under whom they claim title. They further averred that they had been possessed of the premises under color of title, and had paid taxes thereon for a period of more than 10 years, and hence had become vested with title by virtue of section 5471, C. L. 1913; also that the plaintiff railway company has been guilty of such laches as to bar its right to maintain this action. The judgment in the trial court was in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff has appealed and demanded a trial anew in this court. The conflicting claims arose as follows: The St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company was duly qualified under the act of Congress of March 3, 1875, to acquire a right of way and station grounds. In 1887 or prior thereto said railway company located and commenced the construction of a line of railway over the lands in controversy here, completing such construction in May, 1887. At that time the lands were unsurveyed. The Secretary of the Interior had approved the application of the railway company for the construction of such line of railway across the public domain, but a plat giving the definite location thereof was not filed in the local land office at Minot, N. D., until September 3, 1898. In the meantime the lands had been surveyed, and on the last-mentioned date said railway company filed in said local land office a plat, showing the railway as constructed, and an additional 20-acre tract, adjoining the right of way, located in sections 4 and 5, township 155 north, of range 99 west, said tract being designated on said plat as “Spring Brook.” Said plat was thereafter presented to the then Secretary of the Interior, and by him approved on July 10, 1899. For some years after the railroad was constructed and put into operation it maintained the station of Spring Brook at the place so designated in sections 4 and 5. At a later time (the exact time does not definitely appear in the evidence)-the location of said station was changed to its present location in the N. W. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of section 18 of said township and range; that is to say, to a point on the line of railway adjacent to the strip of land involved in this controversy. On April 24, 1900, one John Welo duly made a homestead entry, covering, among others, the said N. W. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of section 18, township 155, R. 99, which homestead entry remained in effect until May 13, 1901, when it was relinquished by the entryman. On January 12, 1900, the said railway company filed in the local land office at Minot, N. D., its application for and the plat of an additional 20-acre tract in the N. E. 1/4 of N. E. 1/4, N. W. 1/4 of N. E. 1/4, N. E. 1/4 of N. W. 1/4, S. E. 1/4 of N. W. 1/4, and N. E. 1/4 of S. W. 1/4 of section 18, township 155 north, range 99 west, which tract includes the lots or parcels of land in controversy here. But it seems that the railway company later withdrew the application and plat, for it bears this indorsement:

“U. S. Land Office, Minot, N. D. Received and refiled July 18, 1900, at 9 a. m. The land embraced in this selection is all vacant except E. 1/2 of N. W. 1/4 and W. 1/2 of N. E. 1/4, section 18, Twp. 155, Rg. 99.

Thomas E. Olsgard, Register.

Abner L. Hanscom, Receiver.”

On October 18, 1900, the then Secretary of the Interior made and signed the following indorsement thereon:-

“Approved subject to all valid existing rights.”

No evidence was offered explanatory of the withdrawal of the plat and application by the railway company. Nor is there any showing that the plat was approved, was at any time filed with the local land office, or that any notation thereof or of the lands claimed therein was ever made upon the records of the local land office. On August 19, 1902, one Philander Pollock filed homestead entry upon a quarter-section of land, including the said N. W. 1/4, N. E. 1/4, section 18, within which the lands in controversy here are located. On June 1, 1903, said Pollock relinquished his entry as to said 40-acre tract, and at the same time located scrip on said tract. The scrip was allowed, and on October 31, 1905, a receiver's receipt for said 40-acre tract was duly issued by the officers of the local land office at Minot, N. D., and shortly thereafter recorded in the office of the register of deeds of said Williams county. On February 28, 1906, the United States issued to said Pollock a patent for said 40-acre tract, which said patent was shortly thereafter recorded in the office of the register of deeds of said Williams county. No notation was made on the receiver's receipt, or reservation or exception made in the patent as to the alleged claim of the plaintiff. Both the receiver's receipt and patent were in the ordinary form, and contained nothing to indicate that either the plaintiff or any one else had or claimed any portion thereof Nothing was recorded in the office of the register of deeds tending to show that plaintiff claimed any portion of the premises for station grounds. Thereafter the defendants, in good faith and without any notice of the alleged claim of the plaintiff, purchased the respective lots now claimed by them, and paid to their respective grantors full value for the tracts conveyed. Each of them received conveyances fair on their face from the then record owners of the title purported to be conveyed by the United States to Pollock by virtue of said patent. Since acquiring such titles the respective defendants or their grantors have been in open and exclusive possession of the respective lots claimed by them, and have caused the same to be improved and valuable structures to be constructed thereon. No claim was asserted by the plaintiff until in May, 1917.

The provisions of the act of Congress of March 3, 1875, which are pertinent to the questions presented in this case are:

“Section 1. The right of way through the public lands of the United States is hereby granted to any railway company duly organized under the laws of any state or...